University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2016 The Rhetoric of Perpetual Warfare: A Political Discourse Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Legitimation of U.S. Drone Strikes Douglas Ray Oeser University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Oeser, Douglas Ray, "The Rhetoric of Perpetual Warfare: A Political Discourse Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Legitimation of U.S. Drone Strikes. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2016. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4013 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Douglas Ray Oeser entitled "The Rhetoric of Perpetual Warfare: A Political Discourse Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Legitimation of U.S. Drone Strikes." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Sociology. Lois Presser, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Stephanie Bohon, Michelle Brown Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) The Rhetoric of Perpetual Warfare: A Political Discourse Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Legitimation of U.S. Drone Strikes A Thesis Presented for the Master of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Douglas Ray Oeser August 2016 ABSTRACT Since 2002, the United States has engaged in a new form of warfare that is not fought by armies or navies but by pilotless aircraft able to conduct surveillance and direct missile strikes across the globe. To date, US military drones have launched hundreds of attacks against locations in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen (Bureau of Investigative Journalism 2016). During the Obama presidency, a program that began as a strategic alternative to direct military intervention became the dominant means of confronting imminent threats to national security before they came to fruition. Increased reliance upon this new technology has resulted in international criticism (IHRCRC 2012; Amnesty International 2013a). Using a theoretical framework based upon critical discourse analysis, I examine the discursive features employed by President Obama and his advising legal and counterterrorism staff to legitimate the use of drone missile strikes. Taking into account previous research on metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 2003), legitimation (van Leeuwen 2008; Reyes 2011), and temporal discourse (Dunmire 2011), I examine the political discourse incorporates metaphorical conceptualizations that dehumanize, uses fear to create to discourage regulation of drone strikes and projections of the future to cast the drone program an imperative to national security. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................... 6 Chapter 3: Data and Analytical Approach ................................................................ 21 Chapter 4: Analysis ............................................................................................... 26 Metaphor of Cancer ........................................................................................... 26 Fear .................................................................................................................. 31 Time ................................................................................................................. 33 Chapter 5: Conclusions .......................................................................................... 36 List of References .................................................................................................. 40 Vita ...................................................................................................................... 53 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Speeches Selected for Analysis. ......................................................................... 23 iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Since 2002, the United States has used remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, to launch missile strikes against targets suspected of being affiliated with al Qaeda and engaging in activity that poses a threat to US national security. Several reviews have been done on the legal arguments supporting the use of force via drones (Gogarty and Hagger 2008; Larson and Malamud 2011; Winter 2011; Blank 2012; Sterio 2012), but there remains a need to critically analyze rhetorical features of the supporting political legitimation. The following analysis of eleven speeches delivered by President Barack Obama and his advising staff of legal and counterterrorism advisors examines discursive features and emphasizes the potential impact these features have on shaping the conceptual models audience members form concerning the use of drone strikes. Through a critical discourse analysis, I found metaphors as well as emotional and temporal language contributed to a strategy of avoiding additional oversight and countering political concerns raised by opponents of the program. The diversion of additional oversight and accountability of the drone program is accomplished through discursive acts of dehumanization, eliciting the fears of victimization and confirming the belief that the threat of future attacks is made all the more likely if restraints are placed on the military capabilities of the state apparatus. The US drone campaign has had a significant physical impact on communities. Since 2009, there have been over 500 drone strikes carried out against people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia (Bureau of Investigative Journalism 2016). Additional strikes have taken place in support of military operations in countries such as Afghanistan, which has 1 been subjected to over an estimated 350 drone strikes. As of 2016, the United States owns over 7,000 drones, many of which are armed (New America Foundation 2016). Over 3,500 people have been killed by hundreds of US drone strikes (Center for the Study of Targeted Killing 20161). Targets of US drone strikes are adherents and affiliates of al Qaeda that have been identified through multiple intelligence sources to be a valuable target. High-Value Targets (HVIs) require the authorization under the command of the executive branch. However, due to the lack of transparency over how each strike is authorized and carried out, it is impossible to know how often drone operators or their immediate supervisors are called upon to act immediately in a time sensitive situation in which a pattern of suspicious behavior has been identified. A number of strikes have targeted US citizens, either cooperating with or detained by al Qaeda, and innocent civilians. The loss of innocent life is but one of many public criticisms that have been waged against the US drone program. Additional scrutiny needs to be placed on exactly how US drone strikes are authorized and carried out in order to account for the loss of innocent life and the reliance on drone technology. I believe that in order to do so, we must focus on the data available to use and focus a lens on the political legitimation of these strikes through a critical discourse analysis. As the US began to increasing rely upon drone strikes, public debate emerged over the program’s strategic effectiveness, ethics and legality (Plaw, Fricker and Colon 2016). Although drone strikes appear to offer short term tactical successes by eliminating 1 Drone strike totals for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen are gathered from multiple sources and are estimates. Due to the lack of an official repository how many US drone strikes have occurred, I have relied upon independent datasets that contain links to all news reports, statements, documents and press releases sourced. 2 people that threaten the US population or interests, concerns have been raised as to whether tactical successes equate to long-term strategic effectiveness. A myth of drone effectiveness began to take hold in which targeting effectiveness comes to imply strategic effectiveness (Boyle 2013). There is nothing to determine whether or not the actions being taken by the US are strategically effective at addressing the sources of extremist violence and this may be by design. Drone technology is purported to be the most effective strategic tool to the United States but there is a lack of transparency on exactly how each of the strikes carried out has led to the complete dismantling of al Qaeda command hierarchy or eliminated their operational capabilities. Lacking any benchmarks of success, the promotion of drones as strategically effective serves merely as an ideological trigger designed to garner public support. The ethics of the US drone program have been evaluated in terms of just warfare and the legality has been questioned both in terms of international and US domestic law. Others